How to review a paper

Citation: Dale J. Benos, Kevin L, Kirk, John E. Hall (2003/June) How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education (RSS)
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): How to review a paper
Tagged: peer-review (RSS), academia (RSS), how-to's (RSS), general literature (RSS)

Summary

An introduction to peer review, intended to "identify issues and ethics of the review process"(p 47).

Advises reviews to act as both "author advocate", treating the paper as they would want their own paper to be treated, and "journal advocate", "to make sure that the best possible science appears in print" (p 48).

The authors identify 5 purposes for peer review:

1. Ensure quality (no logical or procedural mistakes)
2. Determine whether the reasoning is sound (i.e. "that the results presented support the conclusion drawn") (p 48).
3. Check that citations are correct
4. Assess whether human and animal protocols have been followed (i.e. Institutional Research Board review)
5. "that the work is original and significant" (p 48).

Another section further elaborates on the "Reviewer's Etiquette and Responsibilities", emphasizing:

1. honesty
2. confidentiality
3. timeliness
4. avoidance of plagiarism (one's own or the manuscript's)
5. disclosure of one's own conflicts of interest
6. reporting of ethical concerns about the manuscript itself or the authors' research practices
7. that "the reviewer should accept manuscripts only in his/her areas of expertise
8. the importance of constructive criticism

Along with the paper, there are 3 tables, summarizing criteria for manuscript reviews (Table 1), a checklist for reviews (Table 2), and the editor's evaluation of review and reviewer (Table 3).

Theoretical and Practical Relevance

Provides guidance and rationale for reviewing a paper. Explains the peer review process.

A "Resources" section describes the citations and may be helpful for finding earlier research about peer review. The authors point out that "very little definite research"(p 51) has been done regarding the "practice and effectiveness of peer review" (p 51). Seven (7) of the paper's references are to such research.

The remaining three citations may be helpful to journal editors and review system reformers: Two papers about reviewer selection and evaluation are cited, along with a paper reporting on a "review quality instrument" for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts.